Mr. Amit Kumar and Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Advocates v. SMT. MANJU YADAV

Judgment

1. Lis in hand arises out of matrimonial dispute. The respondent/wife having fallen out with her husband (Harish Yadav), due to persistent acrimony, has chosen to drag the petitioners, who are her husband’s cousin (Phuphera bhai) and uncles (Mausas). She alleges that they travelled all the way from Bijnor and Moradabad Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5704/2022 & 3045/2023 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:12.09.2025 13:40:30 (where they reside) to Ghaziabad/ Delhi (NCR) to literally “arm twist” her, committed physical assault (punched and kicked) thus causing a minor injury which led to her pressing the charges, inter alia, under section 323 of the IPC. Though, initially a police complaint was filed,

but no cognizance was taken to register an FIR. Not to be undone, she invoked Section 200 CrPC by filing a common private criminal complaint wherein impugned summoning order dated 04.06.2019 was passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioners. More of it in better details later, at appropriate stage.

2. Vide this common order both the above tilted petitions are being disposed of as similar issues and facts are involved therein.

3. Petitioners (four of them) in both the petitions have same prayer i.e. quash the Complaint case no. 3079/2016 as well as proceedings arising there from pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, as well as, quash summoning order dated 04.06.2019. Assailed herein is also an order dated

28.07.2022 passed by learned Session Judge whereby Criminal Revision No. 55/2020 challenging the summoning order was dismissed.

4. As noted, two of the petitioners are cousin brothers and the other two are uncles (Mausas) of Harish Yadav, husband of the respondent. Marriage between the couple took place on 07.02.2010 at Ghaziabad, U.P. Differences arose soon leading to Harish Yadav filing an application on 22.11.2012 under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 CrPC before the District Court, Amroha, U.P., against his wife/respondent and one Satya Prakash Yadav, alleging offences Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5704/2022 & 3045/2023 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:12.09.2025 13:40:30 under Sections 493, 397, 498, and 494 IPC. Meanwhile, the respondent had also filed a divorce petition before the Tis Hazari Court, which was dismissed on merits on 18.12.2012.

5. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a police complaint dated

18.12.2012, in Delhi against Harish Yadav (husband), Mangal Singh Yadav (father-in-law), Moorti Devi (mother-in-law), Kusum Lata and Chander Pal with reference to alleged incidents dated 17.12.2012 and

18.12.2012.

6. On 21.05.2013, respondent filed another police complaint against Harish Yadav, Mangal Singh, and the present petitioners, namely; Rajkamal Yadav, Kavendra Singh (written as Kamender), Rajveer Singh Yadav, and Ajayveer Singh (written as Ajay Yadav) which didn’t yield any result.

7. Thereafter respondent filed impugned private Complaint under Section 200 CrPC dated 22.07.2013 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354,326,506,452,120B of the IPC.

8. Petitioners assert that allegations in the complaint, ibid, are vague, omnibus, and devoid of any specific role attributed to them. Notwithstanding, on 20.05.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, though dismissed the respondent’s application under Section 156(3) CrPC, but directed the recording of pre-summoning evidence.

9. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 04.06.2019, the Learned MM summoned all the accused persons, including the petitioners, for offences under Sections 452, 323, and 341 read with Section 34 IPC, even though, as asserted by the petitioners, they were Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5704/2022 & 3045/2023 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:12.09.2025 13:40:30 neither named in the police complaint dated 18.12.2012 nor any specific details qua role attributed to them were given, other than vague and omnibus allegations.

10. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a joint revision petition, which was dismissed by the Learned Sessions Court on 28.07.2022. Hence the two petitions herein.

11. In the aforesaid backdrop I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file including the orders under challenge herein.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the though petitioners are the relatives of the respondent’s husband, but they reside separately from Harish Yadav and his wife/respondent and have never been involved in their marital life. However, the respondent has falsely implicated them in the present case with mala fide intent to harass and exert pressure.

12.1 It is pointed out that in the first complaint dated 18.12.2012 lodged with Delhi Police, the petitioners were neither named nor accused of any act. Their casual inclusion surfaced five months later in the complaint dated 21.05.2013 filed before U.P. Police, wherein vague and omnibus allegations without any evidence were levelled against them, which were later carried into her complaint case.

12.2 The impugned proceedings, it is urged, are manifestly tainted with mala fide, malice and ulterior motives to wreak vengeance on Harish Yadav and his family and amount to abuse of process of law.

12.3 Learned Counsel stresses that in matrimonial disputes there is an increasing tendency to implicate all family members, but mere casual reference to relatives without any specific allegation of active Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5704/2022 & 3045/2023 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:12.09.2025 13:40:30 involvement cannot justify cognizance against them. Despite this, the Courts below failed to appreciate that the petitioners were not named in the first complaint and were not assigned any role even in the second complaint, which rested only on vague assertions. Their involvement is nothing more than a casual inclusion, and continuance of proceedings against them would amount to a complete abuse of process of law. Hence, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is invoked to secure the ends of justice. Reliance is placed on Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr1., Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.2, Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti3, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, to contend that vague and general allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes cannot form the basis of prosecution.

12.4 It is further submitted that indiscriminate false implication of relatives, if left unchecked, results in gross misuse of law; the petitioners, who are merely cousins and uncles of the husband, have been dragged into litigation without any specific act/ role attributed to them and are now being compelled to face trial, which itself is a hardship even if it ultimately results in acquittal. In view of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal5, the petition is maintainable, with all the interconnected prayers to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

13. Opposing these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petition under Section 482 CrPC [Section 528